Mark 7.4 and the dipping of cups.

[Ben C. Smith]

This thread is in response to a recent post by JoeWallack concerning Mark 7.4: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2433&p=54829#p54825.

"Mark" (author) has an unorthodox (so to speak) presentation here regarding The Jews "baptizing" of cups. Besides the observation that this is just one of many anachronisms in GMark securely dating it to long after the destruction of the Temple, the combination of "baptism" and "cup" here in the context of ritual cleaning, sure looks like an intentional connection contrast to the subsequent combination of baptism and cup for "ritual cleaning" in the Passion part of the Gospel.

I am interested to know what it is about Mark 7.4 that Joe finds anachronistic. Here are my (admittedly tentative) observations.

First, the word for "washing" here is βαπτισμός, not βάπτισμα, the latter being by far more commonly used of Christian baptism than the former. The breakdown in the New Testament is as follows:

βαπτισμός
Mark 7.4
Hebrews 6.2; 9.10
Colossians 2.12 (textual variant: either βάπτισμα or βαπτισμός)

βάπτισμα
Matthew 3.7
Matthew 21.25
Mark 1.4; 10.38-39; 11.30
Luke 3.3; 7.29; 12.50; 20.4
Acts 1.22; 10.37; 13.24; 18.25; 19.3-4
Romans 6.4
Ephesians 4.5
1 Peter 3.21
Colossians 2.12 (textual variant: either βάπτισμα or βαπτισμός)

The Greek word βαπτισμός is used of ritual procedures other than Christian (or Johannine) baptism twice in the epistle to the Hebrews as well as in Mark 7.4. In secular texts can simply mean a ritual dipping, immersion, or washing, as we find in Plutarch, On Superstitions 2:

When, later, such persons arise from their beds, they do not contemn nor ridicule these things, nor realize that not one of the things that agitated them was really true, but, trying to escape the shadow of a delusion that has nothing bad at the bottom, during their waking hours they delude and waste and agitate themselves, putting themselves into the hands of conjurors and impostors who say to them: "If a vision in sleep is the cause of your fear and the troop of dire Hecate felt to be near" [source unknown], then call in the old crone who performs magic purifications, dip yourself in the ocean, and sit down on the ground and spend the whole day there. "Greeks from barbarians finding evil ways" [Euripides, The Trojan Women, 764], because of superstition, such as smearing with mud, wallowing in filth, immersions [βαπτισμούς], casting oneself down with face to the ground, disgraceful besieging of the gods, and uncouth prostrations.

We do find it used of John's baptism in Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.2:

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism [βαπτισμῷ]; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.

The Greek word βάπτισμα is used almost exclusively of Christian (or Johannine) baptism, though there is no doubt that there is semantic overlap, as befits their close cognate connection.

Let me lay Mark 7.3-4 before our eyes:

(3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; 4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse [βαπτίσωνται] themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washings [βαπτισμοὺς] of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)

Granted, then, that there is no necessary connection between the Greek term βαπτισμός and Christian baptism, and that the term can simply denote any kind of ritual dipping or washing, it looks to me like Mark 7.4 is a fairly straightforward description of customs deriving from or at least including Leviticus 11.32:

32 And on whatsoever one of their dead bodies shall fall it shall be unclean; whatever wooden vessel, or garment, or skin, or sack it may be, every vessel in which work should be done, shall be dipped [βαφήσεται, future passive of βάπτω] in water, and shall be unclean till evening; and then it shall be clean.

(Refer also to Leviticus 15.12.) The Marcan phrase "cups and pitchers and copper pots" looks like a concrete filling out of the Levitical phrase "every vessel in which work should be done," does it not?

What say you, Joe? Is there an anachronism here in the dipping of cups, and, if so, what is it?

Ben.

[Charles Wilson]

Tacitus, Histories, Book 2:

"Vespasian was an energetic soldier; he could march at the head of his army, choose the place for his camp, and bring by night and day his skill, or, if the occasion required, his personal courage to oppose the foe. His food was such as chance offered; his dress and appearance hardly distinguished him from the common soldier..."

As is known, I believe also that this Passage in Mark is from long after 70 - no earlier than 98, in fact. This passage is a long one for Mark. I see it extending through verse 24. It is what might be termed "brittle". The quotes from Isaiah are not especially applicable. One could go back to the "God Fearers" I suppose but, to mix metaphors, it is a stretch. The point is repeated in earnest from verse 15 on.

Further, there is an interesting statement in Mark 7: 3 (RSV):

[3] (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders..."

"For the Pharisees, and all the Jews...". Are there Pharisees who are not Jews? Yes.

John 3: 1 (RSV):

[1] Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicode'mus, a ruler of the Jews.

In other Posts, I have stated that it is curious that Nicodemus is a "Ruler of the Jews" and does not understand the idiom, "You must be born again". I suppose it is possible for Nicodemus to have been abroad, learning Greek and what-not. Perhaps he wasn't in Hebrew Class when idioms were studied. Nonetheless, it is most curious that all of this laid at the feet of the Pharisees. I certainly agree that the Pharisees are hated in the NT and there is plenty of good reason for that, going back to Hyrcanus 1 and Jannaeus and Salome, at least. There appears, however, a sub-text that points to a mis-understanding of what the Pharisees were and why they acted the way they did.

With this, we may see that, indeed, the "Washing of Cups" was a stereotypical view of Jewish Customs. (BTW, Naram Sin washed his swords and armor in the sea after he had finished his conquests of Sumer.) It was Vespasian who put an end to the Judaic Purifications and it was Domitian who finished that view, looking back from 98. "His food was such as chance offered. Thus he pronounced all food clean". Josephus and the newly created Rabbis saw how the former advocates for Ritual Purity groveled in the dirt to find seeds that had gone through the animals. The character "Jesus" himself was "Ritually Unclean" at his supposed crucifixion. He could never have a "High Priest". If Hyrcanus 1 could be disqualified from the High Priest position for having his ears customized, then a "Jesus" certainly could not have been a High Priest. This "Look at Anachronism" is a look back from a different, transcendent, later culture.

CW

[JoeWallack]

First, the word for "washing" here is βαπτισμός, not βάπτισμα, the latter being by far more commonly used of Christian baptism than the former.

JW:
Thanks for the summary Ben. Obviously they have the same root meaning and the letter/pronunciation similarity is exponentially clearer in Greek.

I think 7:4 is part of an Intercalation with the Innie:

7

Verse	Commentary
6 And he said unto them, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with their lips, But their heart is far from me.	Hypocrisy
7 But in vain do they worship me, Teaching [as their] doctrines the precepts of men.	-
8 Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.	-
9 And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition.	Keeping the tradition rejects the commandment
10 For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death:	The Commandment
11 but ye say, If a man shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is Corban, that is to say, Given [to God];	The Tradition
12 ye no longer suffer him to do aught for his father or his mother;	Keeping the tradition rejects the commandment
13 making void the word of God by your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do.	Hypocrisy

In Intercalations the Innie provides the important point. This important point is then intended to be used to explain the Outie and it is the Outie which has the significance in connection with the entire Gospel narrative. Here the Innie is a teaching, not a separate story, because it is part of the Teaching Ministry. The point of the Innie is the supposed observation by GMark's Jesus that the Jewish traditions of the "Pharisees, scribes and Jews" are hypocritical because [Christian theology breaks God's Irony Meter]the Jewish following of these traditions makes Jews think they are holy but thereby prevents them from following God's Commandments which makes them unholy[/Christian theology breaks God's Irony Meter].

I think this washes away your theory Ben that "Mark" (author) intended to reflect a commandment with his description of the baptizing/washing of cups. Next the Outie.


Joseph

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - The London Conference - 1939

[Ben C. Smith]

I do not think this is an intercalation in the same sense as the other, more commonly accepted Marcan intercalations. Mark 7.1-13 is all one unit, one exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees (and scribes).

That said, of course the passage has a point, and of course the point has to do with the Pharisees allegedly creating human traditions.

I think this washes away your theory Ben that "Mark" (author) intended to reflect a commandment with his description of the baptizing/washing of cups.

I do not think so, though it may depend on what you mean by Mark intending to "reflect" a commandment. Recall that I spoke of "customs deriving from or at least including Leviticus 11.32," not merely of the commandment itself. I believe the customs to which Mark refers are probably more specific and more comprehensive than Leviticus 11.32 on its own. The following passages from the Mishnah may be some of the customs alluded to, particularly since Mark specifically references copper pots, and the specific composition of individual vessels apparently had a great deal to do with whether it could become unclean or not, according to Mishnaic tradition:

Kelim 11.1: Utensils of metal are susceptible to uncleanness whether they are flat or whether they form a receptacle.

Kelim 15.1: Utensils of wood, leather, bone, or glass that are flat are not susceptible to uncleanness. If they form a receptacle they are susceptible.

Since the Mishnah (probably) dates to about 200, if that is what you meant by this section of Mark being anachronistic, then I am interested in the argument (patristic references to this section of Mark and the corresponding section of Matthew do tend to be sparse and late); but the anachronism you mentioned was in relation to the destruction of the temple, not to the date of Jewish legal texts, so I am still not sure what you mean in that respect.

Ben.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
The Outie:

7

[td][b][u]Verse[/u][/b][/td] [td][b][u]Style[/u][/b][/td] [td][b][u]Commentary[/u][/b][/td]

1 And there are gathered together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem, 2 and had seen that some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is, unwashen, hands.	Narrative	Bad Teachers
3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; 4 and [when they come] from the market-place, except they bathe themselves, they eat not; and many other things there are, which they have received to hold, washings of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels.)	Editorial	For "Mark's" (author) audience
Innie	Teaching	Following tradition prevents you from following God's commandment's because it makes you think you are holy
14 And he called to him the multitude again, and said unto them, Hear me all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing from without the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man.	Narrative	Good Teacher
16 [If any man hath ears to hear, let him hear.]	Editorial	For "Mark's" (author) audience

JW:
The editorial element here indicates that the pericope is primarily/significantly directed to "Mark's" audience and this is consistent with an anachronism. I've only looked at the Internal so far which of course can not prove an anachronism. Next the External.


Joseph

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - The London Conference - 1939

[JoeWallack]

Let me lay Mark 7.3-4 before our eyes:

(3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; 4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse [βαπτίσωνται] themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washings [βαπτισμοὺς] of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)

Granted, then, that there is no necessary connection between the Greek term βαπτισμός and Christian baptism, and that the term can simply denote any kind of ritual dipping or washing, it looks to me like Mark 7.4 is a fairly straightforward description of customs deriving from or at least including Leviticus 11.32:

And on whatsoever one of their dead bodies shall fall it shall be unclean; whatever wooden vessel, or garment, or skin, or sack it may be, every vessel in which work should be done, shall be dipped [βαφήσεται, future passive of βάπτω] in water, and shall be unclean till evening; and then it shall be clean.

(Refer also to Leviticus 15.12.) The Marcan phrase "cups and pitchers and copper pots" looks like a concrete filling out of the Levitical phrase "every vessel in which work should be done," does it not?

What say you, Joe? Is there an anachronism here in the dipping of cups, and, if so, what is it?

Ben.

JW:
?

Leviticus 11

31 These are they which are unclean to you among all that creep: whosoever doth touch them, when they are dead, shall be unclean until the even.

32 And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherewith any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; then shall it be clean.

33 And every earthen vessel, whereinto any of them falleth, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean, and it ye shall break.

34 All food [therein] which may be eaten, that on which water cometh, shall be unclean; and all drink that may be drunk in every [such] vessel shall be unclean.

35 And every thing whereupon [any part] of their carcass falleth shall be unclean; whether oven, or range for pots, it shall be broken in pieces: they are unclean, and shall be unclean unto you.

36 Nevertheless a fountain or a pit wherein is a gathering of water shall be clean: but that which toucheth their carcass shall be unclean.

JW:
The context here is exclusively contact between dead things and an intermediary for things going inside your mouth. 15:12 has a similar specific context. So who are you and what have you done with Ben Smith?

When/if you see Ben Smith again tell him that the External reasons to think 7:4 is anachronistic are:

• 1) "Mark's" (author) editorial comment says "all" the Jews. It's generally thought that in Jesus' supposed time these types of purity rituals were primarily for Priests.
  
  2) It's generally thought that in Jesus' supposed time the Pharisees did start to promote purity rituals for non-Priests. The Pharisees though would have been only one sect at the time.
  
  3) After the Temple was destroyed the Pharisees dominated Judaism.
  
  4) After the Temple was destroyed Judaism transferred purity rituals that had been for Priests into the home.
  
  5) GMatthew exorcises the "all the Jews" comment. GLuke exorcises the entire pericope.
  
  6) The high level commentaries generally agree with the previous.

Combine this with no extant evidence that there was ritual hand washing for all the Jews in Jesus' supposed time and I normally stop here with this secondary evidence. Due to the lofty evidence standards of this unholy forum though, I will take a look at the primary evidence.

There are many interesting things here regarding the supposed hand washing ritual, even by Markan standards:

• 1) "Mark" says the Jews wash with the "fist". This has confounded Christian commentators for 2,000 years but fits perfectly/brilliantly with the surrounding theme of only "cleaning" the outside and not the inside.
  
  2) The last item is a "couch" which could be used for eating or sleeping. Nice. So it fits the eating related items and...
  
  3) Connects to the same word in 7:30 (sleeping). The only other use of the offending word is the explanatory/teaching 4:21.
  
  4) Regarding your invoking Leviticus (whoever you are), "Mark's" Jesus does exactly what the actual commandments say not to do, deliberately touches the dead and those with issues. If the possible part of these stories were historical "The Jews" would not have taken Jesus seriously. I suppose that could potentially explain a lot.

Joseph

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - Who is Easier to Demonize as Naziish?

[Ben C. Smith]

The context here is exclusively contact between dead things and an intermediary for things going inside your mouth.

Yes, the washings of vessels alluded to in 7.4b have to do with contact with the dead. Exactly so. Of the "many other things" Mark alludes to which the Jews observe, if the Levitical link is valid, one of them — the only example Mark actually gives — has to do with dipping vessels which have made contact with dead bodies. That was always the case.

But you are acting surprised that the context for these additional customs has something to do with the dead. Why? What do you see in that respect that I do not?

1) "Mark's" (author) editorial comment says "all" the Jews. It's generally thought that in Jesus' supposed time these types of purity rituals were primarily for Priests.

"It is generally thought" is not nearly good enough. You would (rightly) reject such an argument were it leveled at your position. I am going to need evidence.

2) It's generally thought that in Jesus' supposed time the Pharisees did start to promote purity rituals for non-Priests. The Pharisees though would have been only one sect at the time.

Same as above.

3) After the Temple was destroyed the Pharisees dominated Judaism.

4) After the Temple was destroyed Judaism transferred purity rituals that had been for Priests into the home.

I think #3 is likely true; #4, though... same as above.

6) The high level commentaries generally agree with the previous.

If you could point me to them, I would be appreciative.

Combine this with no extant evidence that there was ritual hand washing for all the Jews in Jesus' supposed time and I normally stop here with this secondary evidence. Due to the lofty evidence standards of this unholy forum though, I will take a look at the primary evidence.

That would be great. I expect no less.

"Mark" says the Jews wash with the "fist". This has confounded Christian commentators for 2,000 years but fits perfectly/brilliantly with the surrounding theme of only "cleaning" the outside and not the inside.

That is a great point, worthy of consideration.

The last item is a "couch" which could be used for eating or sleeping. Nice. So it fits the eating related items and.... Connects to the same word in 7:30 (sleeping). The only other use of the offending word is the explanatory/teaching 4:21.

Whoa. You need to defend that reading. LaParola:

καὶ χαλκίων καὶ κλινῶν] A D E F G H K W X Θ Π Σ f1 f13 28c 33 157 180 205 565 579 597 700 892 1006 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1243 1253 1292 1344 1365 1424 1505 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz Lect (l10 l80 l303 l313 l333 l374 l1127 l1761 χαλκίων) ita itaur itb itc itd itf itff2 iti itl itq (itr1) vg syrp syrh copsa(mss) goth arm eth geo slav Diatessarona Diatessaronp Origen ς WH (NA [καὶ κλινῶν]) NRtext CEI Rivtext Nv NM
καὶ χαλκίων] p45vid ‭א B L Δ 28* 440 1053 1342 2200 l48 l292 copsa(ms) copbo NRmg ND Rivmg Dio TILC
omit] syrs

Those are some pretty heavy hitters omitting the couches.

Regarding your invoking Leviticus (whoever you are), "Mark's" Jesus does exactly what the actual commandments say not to do, deliberately touches the dead and those with issues.

Yes, he does. As I have said elsewhere, Mark seems to set up the idea that the rules are different for Jesus, and thus may have changed for his followers, too.

If the possible part of these stories were historical "The Jews" would not have taken Jesus seriously. I suppose that could potentially explain a lot.

I tend to doubt any of it was historical; what I am wondering is whether it is anachronistic.

Ben.

[Charles Wilson]

The context here is exclusively contact between dead things and an intermediary for things going inside your mouth.

Yes, the washings of vessels alluded to in 7.4b have to do with contact with the dead. Exactly so. Of the "many other things" Mark alludes to which the Jews observe, if the Levitical link is valid, one of them — the only example Mark actually gives — has to do with dipping vessels which have made contact with dead bodies. That was always the case.

John 11: 14 (RSV):

[14] Then Jesus told them plainly, "Laz'arus is dead;

Lazarus is dead.

For emphasis. Again. Mark is writing from a position of deception. The remainder of the Source which formed GJohn had to be reworked into some manageable form but look at what it says.

John 12: 1- 2 (RSV):

[1] Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Laz'arus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead.
[2] There they made him a supper; Martha served, and Laz'arus was one of those at table with him.

As ben Zakkai lay dying, he stated, "...Clear the house of vessels which can receive corpse-uncleanliness and prepare a throne for Hezekiah, King of Judah, who cometh"
(In passing, from First Century Judaism in Crisis, Jacob Neusner, p.200)

I have stated before, "There are atheists who completely deny God and yet believe that there was a "Jesus", Son of God, who doesn't exist".
Argue over Interpolations here if you wish but there is one thing about this Tableau in John, and by extension, Mark:

Numbers 19: 11 - 22 (RSV):

[11] "He who touches the dead body of any person shall be unclean seven days;
[12] he shall cleanse himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day, and so be clean; but if he does not cleanse himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not become clean.
[13] Whoever touches a dead person, the body of any man who has died, and does not cleanse himself, defiles the tabernacle of the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from Israel; because the water for impurity was not thrown upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is still on him.
[14] "This is the law when a man dies in a tent: every one who comes into the tent, and every one who is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.
[15] And every open vessel, which has no cover fastened upon it, is unclean.
[16] Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain with a sword, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.
[17] For the unclean they shall take some ashes of the burnt sin offering, and running water shall be added in a vessel;
[18] then a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the furnishings, and upon the persons who were there, and upon him who touched the bone, or the slain, or the dead, or the grave;
[19] and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day; thus on the seventh day he shall cleanse him, and he shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and at evening he shall be clean.
[20] "But the man who is unclean and does not cleanse himself, that person shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly, since he has defiled the sanctuary of the LORD; because the water for impurity has not been thrown upon him, he is unclean.
[21] And it shall be a perpetual statute for them. He who sprinkles the water for impurity shall wash his clothes; and he who touches the water for impurity shall be unclean until evening.
[22] And whatever the unclean person touches shall be unclean; and any one who touches it shall be unclean until evening."

But you are acting surprised that the context for these additional customs has something to do with the dead. Why? What do you see in that respect that I do not?

I do not presume to know what you see or not. I do know that the Monstrous Transvaluation worked since we are arguing about a "Jesus" who has remarkable Powers and is placed as our "High Priest" when, on the face of it, he is Ritually Unclean and is offered as a human sacrifice.

1) "Mark's" (author) editorial comment says "all" the Jews. It's generally thought that in Jesus' supposed time these types of purity rituals were primarily for Priests.

Regarding your invoking Leviticus (whoever you are), "Mark's" Jesus does exactly what the actual commandments say not to do, deliberately touches the dead and those with issues.

SO THIS IS A STORY ABOUT THE PRIESTHOOD!!! YES!!! AT LAST!!! SOMEONE GETS IT!!!

As I have said elsewhere, Mark seems to set up the idea that the rules are different for Jesus, and thus may have changed for his followers, too.

If you believe this statement, then follow through with it and ask yourself who could have rewritten Law to effect such change (and moved the seat of this New Religion to Rome...).

CW

[Ben C. Smith]

Incidentally, I have always taken "all the Jews" as hyperbole, the gentile readership not necessarily being much interested in fine distinctions between Pharisaic Jews and other Jews. But I also do not know for sure that there ever came a time (within the most ample dating range for the gospel of Mark) when "all the Jews" were on board for this sort of thing. If we can determine if and when "all the Jews" observed these rules, provided the date works with our other lines of evidence, then I agree we may be able to pin down when Mark 7.3-4 was written. If not, then it may yet be hyperbole. Right?

[neilgodfrey]

fwiw, from Kasper Bro Larsen's "Mark 7:1-23: A Pauline Halakah?" in Mark and Paul, Comparative Essays Part II. For and Against Pauline Influence on Mark (2014) -- p. 172:

Hand·washing before meals ls not a biblical requirement and was according to E. P. Sanders not practised in Second Temple Judaism, let alone by the Pharisees. The rabbinic material, which probably describes later practices, discusses hand-washing for different purposes of ritual purity but not as a general obligalion at meals (see E. P. Sanders, Judalsm: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE·66 CE (London: SCM, 1992, 437-38). For recent discussions, however, see Eyal Regev, "'Pure Individualism: The ldea of Non·Priestly Purity in Ancient Judaism.”JSJ 31 (2000): 176 - 202 and Yair' Furstenberg, "Defilement Penetrating the Body: A New Understanding of Contamination in Mark 7.15." NTS 54 (2008): 176 - 200. lf hand·washlng practices appear for the first time in sources from the Diaspora (Arist. 305...6; Sib. Or. 3.591- 3; cf. Sanders 1992, 223 - 4; 43n. it may be an indication of a Diaspora setting for Matk 7:1-4a